Sony Lens Designer Discusses FE Design

Lovely article. I'd like to read more on the 135 STF. I've been eyeing it since the A7 was announced.

It's too bad that the Japanese don't employ the idea of 'wabi-sabi' in the same way the Germans do when it comes to lens design. I imagine that he means the Germans are after a unique character, rather than clinical perfection. A bit of a backhanded compliment, almost. And not quite true.

I am curious about how much work the software is doing to correct the 35FE and the 55FE. I know the 24-70FE is a mess of a lens. 70-200FE looks pretty amazing. Personally, I'd rather software not correct a lens at all and just hold designers to higher standards.
 
Samourai, generally I would agree, but if we can get some amazing optics for reasonable money, then there is a place for software.
 
Samouraï said:
Lovely article. I'd like to read more on the 135 STF. I've been eyeing it since the A7 was announced.

It's too bad that the Japanese don't employ the idea of 'wabi-sabi' in the same way the Germans do when it comes to lens design. I imagine that he means the Germans are after a unique character, rather than clinical perfection. A bit of a backhanded compliment, almost. And not quite true.

I am curious about how much work the software is doing to correct the 35FE and the 55FE. I know the 24-70FE is a mess of a lens. 70-200FE looks pretty amazing. Personally, I'd rather software not correct a lens at all and just hold designers to higher standards.
Click to expand...

The 35mm FE relies on software correction for the rather significant distortion. The 55mm FE is a bit better, but the internal correction still applies to adjust for minor falloff. But then again, may modern wider Leica designs have significant amounts of distortion and huge falloff (-3% distortion and almost 3ev for the 21mm Summilux) - and I have to make my own falloff profiles for critical work.

If you think the the obvious shortcomings of the 135mm STF is tolerable (a t4.5 unstabilized, manual telephoto), I'd suggest buying one right away...it's not only a lens with incredibly beautiful, smooth bokeh and good color, but also a clinically sharp lens wide open, and can be stopped down to f32 for extra DOF.
 
I heard part of an article about how the RX100 lens is apparently an "awful" lens, in order to fit the size/weight that would work on the body, but that with their internal software and the corrections it does the results are great.

I have an RX100, the images are wonderful, so however the engineers managed it, I appreciate their work

It's here

http://www.tipsfromthetopfloor.com/2014/01/09/tfttf620-horrible-lens-great-pictures/

I ended up turning it off and thinking "the pictures look pretty good to me, I should be using it not listening to this".
 
No offense, but Sony are still far behind the "japan" best camera optics. Good that they work with Zeiss, and great that they made the A7 :)
 
YYV_146 said:
The 35mm FE relies on software correction for the rather significant distortion. The 55mm FE is a bit better, but the internal correction still applies to adjust for minor falloff. But then again, may modern wider Leica designs have significant amounts of distortion and huge falloff (-3% distortion and almost 3ev for the 21mm Summilux) - and I have to make my own falloff profiles for critical work.

If you think the the obvious shortcomings of the 135mm STF is tolerable (a t4.5 unstabilized, manual telephoto), I'd suggest buying one right away...it's not only a lens with incredibly beautiful, smooth bokeh and good color, but also a clinically sharp lens wide open, and can be stopped down to f32 for extra DOF.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I'm still looking for a reasonably priced copy. Most of the old Minolta ones are sitting around the same price as a new Sony branded copy (1300, new is 1400). If the coatings and glass are the same, then I don't care which logo is on the barrel. It's probably worth every cent, though. And interesting about the 35FE and the Leica.

I wonder if Sigma is producing some even more impressive work than we thought. Those new Sigma 35 and 50 Art lenses don't have baked-in lens profiles, yet are really well-corrected. It seems 3rd party lenses are actually held to a higher standard. Or am I confused?

Stupid question, but I need to ask it: are manufacturer lens profiles baked into the RAW output, usually? Or just the JPEGs?
 
Samouraï said:
Thanks for the advice. I'm still looking for a reasonably priced copy. Most of the old Minolta ones are sitting around the same price as a new Sony branded copy (1300, new is 1400). If the coatings and glass are the same, then I don't care which logo is on the barrel. It's probably worth every cent, though. And interesting about the 35FE and the Leica.

I wonder if Sigma is producing some even more impressive work than we thought. Those new Sigma 35 and 50 Art lenses don't have baked-in lens profiles, yet are really well-corrected. It seems 3rd party lenses are actually held to a higher standard. Or am I confused?

Stupid question, but I need to ask it: are manufacturer lens profiles baked into the RAW output, usually? Or just the JPEGs?
Click to expand...

Usually no. With Sony the profile is added into the jpg. You have to apply the correction yourself with the RAWs, usually a version designed by the software supplier (Adobe, DXO .etc)...

The Sigma lenses do have profiles in Photoshop or Lightroom, but they may not be perfect fits for your camera, especially if one is using a APS-C body and the only correction profile is done on FF...My only experience with sigma is the 120-300mm f2.8, so I can't speak as to how good the more popular Sigma lenses are in terms of distortion and falloff. Looking at the tests the modern ART lenses are quite good, though.

About the STF, if you're willing to trust Asian dealers (or buy one in Asia in person) new copies can be had for below $1200...I think the lens retails at about $1150 in Japan because of the weaker Yen, and I paid a similar amount for my (open-box) copy from Hong Kong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom